Disposed

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018CRLP/8886/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. but issued directions preventing arrest of petitioners until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while mandating their cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but must cooperate with investigation.

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8886 of 2018

¶2

Petitioner :- Shahzad @ Guddan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. dated 24.03.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 299 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 376, 511, 506, 307, IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Masoori, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; entire family members have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Per contra, learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F. I. R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶8

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F. I. R.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675 , and Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others (SLP (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017 decided on 27.7.2017) , we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 10.4.2018 VKG

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahjad and 03 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Durgawati Shahni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bilal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rinku Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.